by Thomas Sim, 5 Oct 2003
Dear Matthew,
Thanks for your reply. It has become very intellectual now that we should be appointed to the council of MAICSA for its direction in the future. Don't you think?
I am recently re-registered with ACCA. I was once registered in 1993. During my time, there was only ACCA, no joint-degrees in Applied Accounting or MBA. I take up ACCA again because I share the same view with you that Accounting is in fact, a wider discipline and thus more flexible in its application. I would love to do LLB (Ext London) if it doesn't cost that much and consists of more Malaysian Law variants rather than UK law. All being said, I maintain my views on the exclusiveness of ICSA.
MAICSA has its beginning in a situation that there was not much capital market that required the expertise of chartered Company Sec. That time we needed more lawyers and accountants because the businesses were mostly family owned and small. Similar situation happened with the pharmacists because we needed the small clinics and doctors rather than the consultants and private hospitals (pharmacists are legally qualified to transport and wholesale poison items, doctors are not). Now, we may not have changed fast enough, so there is still no specialisation with company sec or pharmacists. There is this so called - long awaited Dispensing Act - like what is practised overseas. Nevertheless, you are right on the scenario of cost effectiveness to employ lawyer or accountant in the respective functions, more so when they are in 'stone throw abundance'. That is the whole problem of MAICSA.
Our Companies Act 1965 s.139A specified the so called 'prescribed bodies' for the job of Company Sec without required to apply for licence pursuant to s.139B. Therefore, you are incorrect on that scenario unless the law has changed. Therefore, ICSM is just a 'club' serving for the purpose of gathering those who love company sec job to unite together under one umbrella. It is not a prescribed body under the CA 1965 (again, unless the law has changed). If you are already a qualified person for the job, why do you need to pay for exam and student fee to qualify under MAICSA? This, you have exampled by rejecting ACCA holders to study CIMA because ultimately it is only one membership - CA (M) under MIA that is required to practice as an accountant.
So, your suggestion that all should go through MAICSA to be company sec would be impossible if not unreasonable from the beginning - that is legislation. You need to go to our Minister to change that. May be one day when there is enough qualified man power in ICSM to put ICSM under an Act of Parliment by itself. This scenario would be like MIA which ACCA, CIMA and MICPA are its recognised bodies. I guess that would be a more possible outcome and I believe you would not like it as you prefer MAICSA being the only body. Right? Therefore, I prefer to think that MAICSA has all the problems you have mentioned and thus using ICSM to go around it. Similar would happen with the pharmacists. The Act would only come through when there are enough pharmacists around and the medical reimbursement programme come into play. Of course, we wait to see who will benefit.
On your interpretations of the qualifying exam and pharmacy board going to be the next - very much a political manoeuvre. I don't share the same view. I come from local uni and I have seen the other side. Professional courses are all under special quota and every year you can imagine how many doctors, pharmacists (those days only USM), engineers, lawyers and accountants are produced from local U who are smart bumiputras. In the First Schedule, Part I of the Accountants Act, 1967, all local U accounting graduates are CA (M) after 3 years of relevant experience. There is no need to provide qualifying exam to benefit the bumiputras as it is not to their advantage. Conversely, in the similar context, the CLP has benefited the non-bumi rather than the bumi - don't you agree? Back in those days, UKM law has no non-bumi because its LLB was exclusive with Syariah Law. The reasons why IMU and other medical colleges came late into private tertiary education are because of cost, academic man power and commitment of full-time education rather than non-lab based disciplines like Law and Accountancy.
As for the pharmacy board going to be next, I don't see any disadvantage because even USM pharmacy is offered by Sedaya College. It simply means that it is 'open to all', competition will select the fittest in the market. Of course, the economic agenda is to benefit those who 'milk the money' in these private institutions and the whole food chain beyond it.
Back in the old days, a professional qualification is a professional qualification. You don't need another qualification or degree unless you do it for the love of knowledge. The issue of employer paying equal to degree holders from a professional qualified person is, I believe, due to the function which happens to be similar. Economically, one RM is the wage for one unit of work. However, if the function is different, eg CFO v Company Sec as what you said, there is definitely a need of difference! For your information, my company CFO in Switzerland has a PhD in Industrial Engineering. Isn't he out of place? But lets face it, it is leadership, attitude and interpersonal skills - not qualification - that would carry one far.
The days of getting a degree or professional qualification and make big money is no more. The world has gone very competitive. Hence, thinking that a qualification is the career solution is long gone. At most, it is a job solution. This, I am sure you already know.
As a whole, we see people going into duo-specialist qualifications - ACCA and CIMA - may be a repetition in your view. This is a resultant of competition in the job market. In the first place, I believe Management Accounting is such a specialised field that one hardly claim a specialist unless one is already CIMA qualified. Be it ACCA, ICSA or CIMA, it is just a qualification and thus for a certain career path. 70% of CA (M) are not in public practice, so it proves one thing - knowledge (substance over form) is valued over qualification because anything that is just by qualification doesn't pay as well. It happens with doctors who survive on annual examination of fitness for driving licences and insurance plans. They are becoming 'cheap rubber stamping' doctors now, they work hard no doubt but sadly said, no satisfaction at work.
Rubber stamping auditor is the reason of the recent debacle in Enron. Lets work as company sec for listed companies which would be more challenging! Even if you rate that as too 'narrow focused', I think most people wouldn't really mind. Would you?
Thanks,
Thomas Sim
No comments:
Post a Comment